LandofIndus wrote:
May 8th 2011 7:14 GMT
. That means the Army will no longer face internal security threats and they can re-deploy on the Western borders.
.....
I understand that the Incompetence of the army itself is a security threat.

‘Are you suggesting that, what prevents other countries from acting in this manner, is their superior morality, and not their complete lack of both ability and will?
Really, now. Pull the other one, that has got bells on it...’

Are you really and honestly stating that what should give a country its kudos is not its morality, but its ability and will? Are you also suggesting that capturing bin Laden alive and putting him in a western prison would be more difficult then killing him? I can’t be entirely sure; you did not phrase this point very well. What I took you to mean is that all the other silly countries in the world don’t have the ability to capture a terrorist, and instead, pretend to take the moral high ground. Hm, I think that the moral high ground should always be sought by civilized countries to maintain stability, this is basic stuff - can be applied to any situation, just think of family feuds.

And to Bharat pp
AL-QUEDA is a large scale terrorist organisation dedicated to the destruction of the western world. It is not particularly anarchic; it has decisive aims. It does however use anarchy to achieve these aims. Anarchy as a political ideal is completely unsustainable. It only exists as a way of deconstructing existing political structures, in this case, democracy. The idea of committing a revenge killing against the leader of a terrorist organisation is just proof that we are descending down the steps of anarchy. The vindication that many in the western world feel about this death is being relayed to the people in terrorist organisations as further proof that the west is evil and is corrupt. Imagine if bin Laden was caught by a police force, put on trial and thrown into prison as a criminal, and not killed as a martyr. How much more great a victory to the West would that have been? Instead, we as Bharat pp stated, have behaved in a similar way to the ‘Muslim countries’ who ‘have no qualms about behaving much less ethically’. Yes we have quite right. Maybe bin Laden should have been taken out and stoned to death, and his dismembered head fed to the American blood lust, because really, as long as we are not much worse then the evil we fight, we can still pretend the ‘war ‘ as it is called, is justified.

And another thing, the way in which the body was disposed was ill conceived. In my opinion so long as bin Laden's death remains impossible to prove it will perpetuate a myth and provide fuel for al Queda’s fire.

Now that Osama is no longer living in Pakistan, Al Qaeda will re-locate out of Pakistan. Pakistan is no longer a "secure" environment for Al Qaeda. That is very good news because then the other terror proxies aided and abetted by India inside Pakistan via Afghanistan will also dissipate. That means the Army will no longer face internal security threats and they can re-deploy on the Western borders. As for the cash inflows, these will only increase because Pakistan will become more secure internally and investment flows will start. The war in Afghanistan still has a long way to go, and no one will want to antagonize Pakistan for long. Pakistan is still the only route to Afghanistan. So, Pakistan wins after all.

Pakistan never gets humilated. It has a very thick skin. Just go back to the history and see they can do anything and everything easily and it's patrons are there to cheer them up. Almost everyone has been pointing out Osama bin Laden is sheltered in Pakistan and finally it was proved how correct these people were? Pakistani Military Intelligence outfit ISI was the kingpin here and will they be taken to task for?

Whereas I have no sympathy for bin Laden's outcome I am of the opinion that Gao MF has raised some very salient points. If every country acted as the US has, no matter what the insult, global anarchy could increase.
..............
I understand that Muslim countries have no qualms about behaving much less ethically then the USA.

The largest intelligence network in the world with billions and billions of dollars to spend, latest state of the art technology at its disposal; cooperation and input from entire western intelligences; yet the 9/11 terrorists honed their flying skills in USA and carried out the biggest terrorist plot in history in USA right under the nose of this intelligence network. To add insult to injury, it took this intelligence network one decade to find and kill just one man called Bin Ladin. In view of failure of such gigantic proportions right under their noses and in their own yard, ISI's failure under their very nose and in their own back yard is miniscule in comparison. If CIA and remaining American intelligence agencies failed miserably in their own territory, then by the very same criteria, it is far more likely for a minor intelligence agency with scant resources to fail. If ISI is suspected of being complicit in protecting Bin Laden that same can be assumed of CIA and FBI of allowing 9/11 to happen.

Look, for all those who question the legality of bin Laden bust-out, here is a simple answer.

Islamic law totally allows for revenge. Each of these Islamists who kill in the name of their religion should understand, and expect that.

For each and every one of the victims of terrorisism, these terrorists and their minders (read Pakistani military and their ISI) are should be fair game. Even the terrorists understand that. But they do not have the guts to stand up and fight.

Question is how many of these victims really decide to take up arms to settle the issue. There will certainly be some, and these aren't going to go speak nonviolence.

Because, ultimately, the only argument against a crazy idiot is to become one yourself

Strait Forward reminds us of Pakistan's perfidy and deviousness, at once taking western aid while giving comfort to its sworn enemies. The list is long and needs explanation because it is looking more stupid by the day.

Why did the Obama administration do what it did in the way that it did? Answer: because there was no alternative. If asked to hand over Bin Laden the Pakistani authorities would have simply denied he was there, just as they deny many other terrorists are there, so there was no alternative to getting Bin Laden but to 'violate Pakistani sovereignty'. They couldn't tip off the Pakistanis that they were coming because Bin Laden would have been tipped off to and he simply wouldn't have been there when the SEALs arrived. Instead they may well have run into a rather nasty Al-Qaeda reception committee intended to discourage such actions in future. This is essentially what happened in 1995 when the Clinton administration retaliated against Al-Qaeda for bombing their embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by firing cruise missiles at known training camps in the NWFT. The intention was to stop the Pakistanis from shooting at the Indians thinking the attack came from them, a wise precaution given Pakistani paranoia over India. Instead the result was that Al-Qaeda was tipped off and the camps were abandoned before they were struck. So, no way were the Americans going to do anything other than come in the way that they did.

What happened when they got there is fairly obvious. The SEALs no doubt trained on mock-ups of the house inasmuch as they could get the details without alerting anyone. As the intel built up they had time for this. They would have trained for likely scenarios and less likely ones. It would have been highly likely that Bin Laden would have weaponry, explosives, maybe a bolt-hole in easy reach and they would have trained for these eventualities above all. Shooting someone in the leg is something you don't think of at once in a shooting situation, but it certainly is disabling, usually not permanently, and would have been part of the training. Given the speed necessary for the operation killing him on the spot not only obviated the huge risks to anyone involved in due process - assuming it was possible at all - but also his subsequent immediate release by Pakistani rescue missions or even, much, much later by the US courts! Instead his death sent a chilling message to would-be imitators that they wouldn't die in their beds any more than Carlos the Jackal did. Bin Laden may not have been the last hold-out but it would be surprising if the US didn’t target his immediate likely successors.

And why was it that Bin Laden atypically stayed in the one place so long and unexpectedly didn't have arms and bodyguards to hand? There can be only one explanation, someone in the Pakistani military was extending him protection, more likely a secret clique of Al-Qaeda supporters indistinguishable from the terrorists themselves. He didn't need weapons because anyone trying to get to him would have to come through layers of security and he'd have been well prepared, most likely long gone etc. All this the Americans by-passed with their 'stealth' helicopters and their 'violation of Pakistani sovereignty'. He was obviously so deeply surprised by being found that he was unable to mount the defence he didn't think he needed.

And this brings us to the Pakistanis themselves, in particular the ISI, chief architect of the BCCI bank fraud, and continuing supporter and financier for the Taliban in Afghanistan, perhaps in Pakistan too, now exposed as protectors of Al-Qaeda. The Pakistani military have frequently got so fed up with their incompetent politicians that they’ve taken over themselves with usually disastrous results for civil society.

And now we come to the crunch. In 2010 the Indus flooded to an extent not seen in 100 years, ruining a water management system originally touted the most advanced in the World – 50 years ago, maybe. In prehistoric times the Indus and the other great Himalayan rivers had annual waterflows even greater than that experienced last year. Climate change means that the conditions for these huge outflows are coming back and 2010 was an early harbinger of this. If Pakistan isn’t going to be literally washed away it will have to manage that waterflow from end to end, and there are only two peoples who have the means and the incentives to make that possible, the Americans who know how to manage rock stresses in earthquake zones like Pakistan (it’s pointless having those fancy water management systems if they get trashed by the next earthquake), and the Chinese, who would undoubtedly would want the electricity which is an obvious by-product, and who could pay for the engineering (and carry it out). Neither of them have any love for Al-Qaeda and the ISI will have to dump them completely in an act of contrition– or get washed away in the floods they can’t otherwise prevent.

PAKISTAN (especially the military) is playing a double game. Giving refuge (tacitly or expressly or at least turning a blind eye) to OBL to appease the militants and also many Pakistani sympatisers and getting US $ billions in return for arm aids. Why not? Otherwise how do you expect the military personnel to live in style????

" If every country acted as the US has, no matter what the insult, global anarchy could increase."

Are you suggesting that, what prevents other countries from acting in this manner, is their superior morality, and not their complete lack of both ability and will?
Really, now. Pull the other one, that has got bells on it...

Whereas I have no sympathy for bin Laden's outcome I am of the opinion that Gao MF has raised some very salient points. If every country acted as the US has, no matter what the insult, global anarchy could increase. No matter how it is justified, when all is said this was a killing spurred on by revenge. Revenge as a form of justice needs to be left and buried from when it was first popular, in the time of the historic Romans. We need to move on.

Unless you have specific proof, please spare us the "blow back" propaganda.

For one, Pakistan ran operations on the ground. Hence they benefitted from doling out and embezzling tons of US cash.

Two, I think a good number of folks came to the AfPak region on their own volition, and not all were fanatics. In addition, it seems they didn't do much - came late to the show, engaged in some guerrilla tourism, etc.; Afghans did the heavy lifting

Three, there were already fanatics in Afpak - say the Haqqani's, and Hekmatyar (who kicked off his career circa 1975 with killing some political opponent in Kabul).

Four, Pakistan's military government under Zia Al Haq was implementing a program encouraging Islamic sentiments, playing to fundamentalism and chauvinism to bolster its regime and as a salve for the 1971 war disaster

Five, Afghanistan was a mess before the Soviet invasion, and even the communist factions drove the Soviets up the wall (factionalism was partly the reason for the invasion).

Six, the Pakistanis sponsored the Taleban after the war, during a short intervale when the warlord, mujahadeen whatever fell into conflict/chaos.

This is very true though: Once the Soviets were defeated, the US ignored Afghanistan completely and didn't ---(expletive deleted) about the country or the 3 million refugees inside Pakistan.

But what do you expect of an insular, continental size country that then had: Communism fall, war with Iraq, economic challenges from Japan, deficits, and a recession that sufficiently tripped up the incumbent administration...

"We stress that the blood of the holy warrior sheik, Osama bin Laden, God bless him, is precious to us and to all Muslims” the statement said according to the A.P., adding that his death would not “go in vain."

I guess a truly sad day for the Friday prayers for that lot. Maybe they should try throwing a wake of the old Irish variety and lighten up (i.e., difference between an Irish wedding and an Irish wake? One less drunk).

Even better, just go home.

Of course conspiracists may press the point that it could be in Al Qaeda's interest to have their honcho believed to be dead (to emulate Blofeld from James Bond series? Or Fu Manchu?)

The US imported thousands of Arab fanatics from the Middle East and planted them in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets. One of them was called Osama Bin Ladin. At that time, he was a great "freedom fighter." Once the Soviets were defeated, the US ignored Afghanistan completely and didn't give a shit about the country or the 3 million refugees inside Pakistan. The country turned into a cesspool allowing Osama to turn his guns onto the US. The same freedom fighter was now called a terrorist. Who is the real Osama ? I am sure an evil man, but one created by the US in the first place.

Pakistan's duplicity and incompetence is now exposed. Its time the US and West took a serious view as to whether this rogue nation should be allowed to keep its nuclear weapons. What is the guarantee that Pakistan in its desparation and incompetance doesn't actually let these weapons pass onto some of the other terror organisations they have been nurturing? Afterall they invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussain on a far more flimsy pretext. In the case of Pakistan the US and the WEST have clear evidence. As for Pakistan its only option is to become a satellite state of China. They should give their nukes to China for safe keeping. Afterall it was China who illegally armed them with the technology in the first place. China will positively help them as they have a penchant for having only these rogue states as friends (North Korea, Sudan, Myanmar and now Pakistan). What an illustrous list of friends!!!

Nirvana-Bound
I share the same doubts of these exposed by you. Probably, Bin Laden had become just an old man to the Al-Qaida Terrorist-Political international network. Certainly his death does not make any difference to the "Al-Qaida great project" , whatever that means ! (To "expulse the US military troops from Middle East?,To create a Union of Socialist Theological Republics confederation there ?, ...). I really would like to know precisely the Al-Qaida great objective on the region.
But the point underlying the somewhat “propaganda" US maneuver for diminishing the perception of inflicted horrible wounds on the US pride ans self confidence , made by that group of less of "bare hands" twenty Terrorists -At least for the honest Historians (even Julius Ceaser or Hannibal were killed by adversary "special forces" !) , may not work in the long run !.
Who or What Institutions are the real culprits or to be blamed on the September eleven events undoubtely remains in the "Hearts and Minds of the American citizens" .Just remember the high price paid in the Iraqi war! Certainly it will not be the death of an old man that those questions can be easily X-filed!.
By the way, they all were suicide "commanders”, perhaps as the own Bin Ladden (previously trained by the CIA-do not forget that!) .Perhaps, several states have agreed that by offering the Bin Laden killing, they could be relived on their defenses budgets and Us military pressions and sanctions , since it is well know that the multibillionaire US defense budget is mainly due to the "War" against Terror.
The fact that the killing of Bin Laden had happened on the Democratic Obama presidential term certainly has a strong chance of leading him for a second presidential mandate instead of a more aggressive US Republican President , willing to recovery the US economy mainly through the grow of military Budgetary to counter react to the” War Terror and China &CEI military power on the World”. Note that the “War in Terror” actually appears just to be an excuse to keep overhelming military power projection in that highly conflagrated oil producer region, bordered by Russia (Iran) and China.